AEE 5984: Independent Research #2

Nickels, A., Rowland, T., & Fadase, O. (2011). Engaging undergraduate students to be agents of social change: Lessons from student affairs professionals. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(1), 45-59. Retrieved from: http://www.naspaa.org/jpaemessenger/Article/VOL17-1/06_17n01_NickelsRowlandFadase.pdf/

The article, Engaging Undergraduate Students to Be Agents of Social Change addresses how faculty in public administration program can use The Social Change Model of Leadership Development (SCM).  The authors propose SCM will prepare public administration students to become more active and develop the skills necessary to become change agents in their professional life.  There are three lessons included to assist faculty members to incorporate SCM directly into their teaching.

SCM is a social change model created to use specifically in the high education environment and targets college students.  There are two main goals to the model, which include: “to enhance student learning and development and to facilitate positive social change at the institution or in the community (Nickels, Rowland & Fadase, 2011, pp. 46).  The model includes eight C’s which are broken into subcategories of individual, group and societal. The C’s by subgroup are: Individual: Consciousness of Self, Congruence, and Commitment; Group: Collaboration, Common Purpose, and Controversy with Civility; and Societal: Citizenship.  The final C- Change occurs from the interaction and development of the other seven C’s. 

The individual category encompasses the student’s ability to better understand their own identity, values, and biases in order to make connection of their life experiences (pp. 47).  The Group category enables students to understand the development of relationships.  This is essential for students desiring to work in the public administration field as it will be necessary for them to understand how to develop and balance relationships in the work they do.

When viewing this article in connection to the reading from class, direct connections can be made to Burke’s levels of Organizational Change.  The three levels of change are individual, group, and large system.  Burke writes that organizations are a whole and to make systemic change, it is necessary to have change occur in all areas (p. 99).  Similarly, Nickels, Rowland and Fadase use the eight C’s of SCM to reinforce this theory of levels of organizational change.  The first seven C’s hit at the heart of addressing systemic change at the individual, group and societal level.  SCM only recognizes the eighth C of change as occurring from the interaction and development that occurs when students experience the other seven levels.  Connecting the article to the Goldsmith book, is the overall goal of Nickels, Rowland and Fadase to help public administration students to make rethink how they understood themselves and then made parallels with the needs of the community they planned to serve with their learning in the classroom.  Using SCM, the students will be to “practice a kind of public service that seeks to transform people and institutions that focuses on social and economic justice” (Nickels, Rowland and Fadase, 2011, p. 45).

The article was different than any other article I have read before.  The authors provided a more hands on lesson plan in order for other practitioners to implement their class activities.  I found this interesting because normally research articles show only their research and connect it to the literature.  However this article is a toolbox that public administration faculty can easily read and then use to incorporate into their teaching.

One of the issues I see with the article is the lack of quantitative data.  The authors provided only anecdotal evidence for their findings.  The vague use of terms leaves the reader questioning how they defined terms.  For instances, how many students is many?  How many students applied to the Peace Corp or won awards working in the Native American community (pp. 51).  As well, the authors wrote several times, “Students must believe that positive and sustainable social change is achievable” (pp. 51) or “It is important for students to believe that they can create change in their communities and in their work” (pp. 51).  Both of these statements were without findings or research to validate them.  As a reader, I question if this was the authors’ personal opinion or if it was central to the success of using SCM.  Finally, it was difficult to discern what the real impact SCM had on public administration students.  Future readers might question why the framework is the best for this particular group of students.

When thinking about this article, I am quite interested in understanding more about SCM.  The model appears to be in line with my interest in Higher Education.  Although the article was written from the perspective of serving public administration faculty, I can even see ways to implement the lessons into the work I do with diversity education.  A lot of diversity work is similar to what Burke writes in Chapter 3 on sensitivity training, allows the participants to have active feedback on their experiences.  For instance, “Examining Our Lenses” lesson can easily be implemented by having attendees not just create a pair of lenses to reflect on themselves as individuals but then connecting this to how others view them.  The attendees can engage in active feedback to help develop a clearer understanding of their views and how others interact with their views, while also providing an opportunity to adjust the perceptions they are giving out to others.